Bank Guarantees and Moratorium in Corporate Insolvency: An In-depth Examination of National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sh. Prabhakar Kumar

Introduction

The interplay between bank guarantees and the moratorium provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has emerged as one of the most debated aspects of corporate insolvency resolution in India. The tension between protecting the assets of a corporate debtor during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and safeguarding the legitimate interests of creditors and financial institutions has led to significant judicial scrutiny. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) decision in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. Sh. Prabhakar Kumar [1] represents a landmark judicial pronouncement that clarifies the applicability of moratorium provisions to bank guarantees furnished by third-party institutions.

This case arose from a factual matrix where M/s. Ganesh Fire Equipments Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor, had entered into a financial assistance agreement with National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (NSIC) on 11th May 2012 for procurement of raw materials. As part of this arrangement, seven bank guarantees were submitted by the Corporate Debtor to NSIC. When the Corporate Debtor was subsequently admitted into CIRP, with the announcement published in newspapers on 12th February 2020, NSIC invoked these bank guarantees merely two days later on 14th February 2020. This action triggered a legal dispute that would have far-reaching implications for understanding the scope and limitations of moratorium provisions in insolvency proceedings.

The Resolution Professional challenged this invocation by filing an Interim Application, arguing that NSIC’s actions violated the moratorium imposed under Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC, 2016. This provision is designed to create a standstill period during CIRP, preventing any action to foreclose, recover, or enforce security interests created by the Corporate Debtor. However, NSIC contended that their actions fell within the exception carved out under Section 14(3)(b) of the IBC, which excludes sureties in contracts of guarantee from the moratorium’s application. The NCLAT’s adjudication of this matter provides critical insights into how courts interpret the relationship between moratorium provisions and bank guarantees in the context of insolvency resolution.

Understanding the Legal Framework of Bank Guarantees

Bank guarantees constitute a specialized form of financial security instrument that plays a vital role in commercial transactions. At its core, a bank guarantee represents a contractual undertaking by a banking institution to make payment to a beneficiary if the party on whose behalf the guarantee is issued fails to fulfill their contractual obligations. Unlike traditional forms of security interest that involve rights over specific property or assets, a bank guarantee creates a separate and independent obligation on the part of the guarantor bank.

The legal nature of bank guarantees is distinct from other security mechanisms in several important respects. First, bank guarantees are typically unconditional and irrevocable, meaning that once issued, the bank is obligated to honor the guarantee upon presentation of the requisite documents or upon the occurrence of specified events, without questioning the underlying transaction’s merits. Second, bank guarantees do not create any charge or encumbrance on the assets of the principal debtor. Instead, they represent a commitment by a third party (the bank) to discharge the obligations of the principal debtor should they fail to do so.

In the context of insolvency proceedings, this distinction becomes critically important. When a corporate debtor enters CIRP, the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 is designed to preserve the corporate debtor’s assets and prevent their dissipation. The fundamental question that arises is whether invocation of a bank guarantee impacts the assets of the corporate debtor in a manner that would attract the moratorium provisions. This question requires careful analysis of both the nature of bank guarantees and the legislative intent behind the moratorium framework.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872, which governs contracts of guarantee, defines a contract of guarantee as a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of their default. However, bank guarantees in commercial practice often operate differently from traditional contracts of guarantee. They are typically payable on first demand without the beneficiary needing to establish actual loss or the principal debtor’s default. This unconditional nature of bank guarantees makes them particularly valuable commercial instruments but also raises complex questions about their treatment during insolvency proceedings.

The Moratorium Provisions Under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016

The moratorium provisions enshrined in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 represent a cornerstone of the corporate insolvency resolution framework. These provisions are designed to create a conducive environment for the resolution of corporate insolvency by providing a temporary reprieve from creditor actions, thereby allowing the corporate debtor’s business to continue as a going concern while a resolution plan is formulated.

Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016 mandates that upon admission of an application for initiating CIRP, the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) must, by order, declare a moratorium for prohibiting specified actions. The scope of this moratorium is extensive and covers multiple categories of actions that creditors might otherwise take against the corporate debtor. Specifically, Section 14(1)(a) prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, including execution of any judgment, decree, or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel, or other authority. [2]

Section 14(1)(c), which was particularly relevant to the National Small Industries Corporation case, prohibits “any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.” [2] This provision aims to prevent creditors from realizing their security interests during the moratorium period, thereby preserving the corporate debtor’s assets for the collective benefit of all stakeholders.

The legislative intent behind these moratorium provisions is multifaceted. First, the moratorium seeks to prevent a rush among creditors to seize assets, which could result in a sub-optimal distribution of the corporate debtor’s value. Second, it provides breathing space for the resolution professional to assess the corporate debtor’s financial position, identify potential resolution applicants, and formulate a viable resolution plan. Third, the moratorium helps maintain the corporate debtor as a going concern, which typically preserves more value than a piecemeal liquidation of assets.

However, recognizing that an absolute moratorium could create unintended consequences and prejudice certain legitimate interests, the legislature incorporated several exceptions to the moratorium under Section 14(3) of the IBC. Section 14(3)(b) specifically provides that the moratorium “shall not apply to a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor.” [2] This exception was introduced through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018, and later clarified through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, to explicitly state that proceedings against guarantors and sureties could continue despite the moratorium imposed on the corporate debtor.

The rationale for this exception rests on the principle that the assets of a surety or guarantor are separate and distinct from those of the corporate debtor. Allowing creditors to proceed against guarantors does not diminish the corporate debtor’s asset base available for resolution. Moreover, contracts of guarantee represent independent contractual obligations undertaken by parties who have voluntarily assumed contingent liabilities. Denying creditors the right to enforce these guarantees would fundamentally alter the risk allocation agreed upon by the parties at the time of entering into the guarantee arrangement.

The National Small Industries Corporation Case: Factual Matrix and Procedural History

The factual backdrop of the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. Sh. Prabhakar Kumar case provides a typical illustration of the commercial realities that give rise to disputes over bank guarantees during insolvency proceedings. M/s. Ganesh Fire Equipments Pvt. Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor) was engaged in the business of manufacturing fire safety equipment. To finance its operations and procure raw materials, the company entered into a financial assistance arrangement with the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., a government enterprise established to promote and support small-scale industries in India.

On 11th May 2012, the Corporate Debtor and NSIC formalized their arrangement through a written agreement. Under the terms of this agreement, NSIC would provide financial assistance to the Corporate Debtor for the purchase of raw materials necessary for its manufacturing operations. To secure NSIC’s interests and ensure repayment of the amounts advanced, the Corporate Debtor arranged for seven bank guarantees to be issued in favor of NSIC. These guarantees were furnished by Canara Bank (referred to as Respondent No. 2 in the proceedings) and were unconditional and irrevocable in nature, consistent with standard banking practice for such instruments.

The Corporate Debtor’s financial difficulties eventually led to the initiation of CIRP against it. An application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution was filed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which admitted the application and ordered the commencement of CIRP. In accordance with the requirements of the IBC, 2016, a public announcement regarding the initiation of CIRP was published in newspapers on 12th February 2020. This public announcement serves multiple purposes: it notifies creditors of the insolvency proceedings, invites submission of claims, and puts the general public on notice that the corporate debtor is undergoing insolvency resolution.

Within a remarkably short timeframe of just two days after the public announcement, on 14th February 2020, NSIC invoked the bank guarantees that had been issued by Canara Bank in its favor. This timing proved significant and controversial. The Resolution Professional, who had been appointed to manage the affairs of the Corporate Debtor during CIRP, viewed NSIC’s action as premature and violative of the moratorium that had been imposed under Section 14 of the IBC. Accordingly, the Resolution Professional filed Interim Application No. 3139/ND/2020 before the NCLT, New Delhi, seeking to restrain NSIC from encashing the bank guarantees.

The Resolution Professional’s primary argument was grounded in Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC, 2016. The Resolution Professional contended that the bank guarantees constituted security interests created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property, and therefore, any action to enforce these guarantees during the moratorium period was prohibited. The Resolution Professional further argued that allowing the encashment of bank guarantees would effectively result in the depletion of resources that could potentially have been available to the Corporate Debtor, thereby prejudicing the interests of all stakeholders in the insolvency resolution process.

The NCLT, New Delhi, accepted the Resolution Professional’s arguments and passed an order restraining NSIC from invoking the bank guarantees. The tribunal took the view that during the moratorium period, all actions that could potentially affect the assets or financial position of the Corporate Debtor should be stayed, and this protection should extend to bank guarantees as well. This decision prompted NSIC to file Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 841 of 2021 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, challenging the NCLT’s order.

Legal Arguments and Contentions Before NCLAT

The appellate proceedings before the NCLAT witnessed detailed and nuanced arguments from all parties involved, each presenting distinct perspectives on the interpretation and application of the IBC’s moratorium provisions to bank guarantees.

NSIC, as the appellant, advanced several key arguments in support of its right to invoke the bank guarantees despite the moratorium. The primary plank of NSIC’s case was based on Section 14(3)(b) of the IBC, 2016, which explicitly carves out sureties in contracts of guarantee from the moratorium’s application. NSIC argued that the bank guarantees furnished by Canara Bank constituted contracts of guarantee, and therefore, Canara Bank stood in the position of a surety to the Corporate Debtor. Since Section 14(3)(b) provides that moratorium provisions shall not apply to a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor, NSIC contended that it had every right to invoke the bank guarantees during the CIRP period.

NSIC further emphasized the independent and unconditional nature of bank guarantees. Drawing upon established principles of banking law and commercial practice, NSIC argued that bank guarantees create obligations that are separate and distinct from the underlying transaction between the creditor and the debtor. When a bank issues a guarantee, it assumes a primary obligation to pay the beneficiary upon fulfillment of the conditions specified in the guarantee. This obligation is not dependent on the financial condition or insolvency status of the principal debtor. Therefore, NSIC maintained that proceedings to enforce a bank guarantee should not be viewed as actions against the Corporate Debtor or its assets.

The appellant also highlighted the practical and policy implications of prohibiting the invocation of bank guarantees during CIRP. NSIC argued that bank guarantees are fundamental instruments in commercial transactions, providing security and confidence to parties entering into business arrangements. If creditors were prevented from invoking bank guarantees during insolvency proceedings, it would significantly undermine the utility and reliability of these instruments. Financial institutions might become reluctant to issue guarantees, and creditors might demand alternative forms of security that could be more burdensome for businesses. Such an outcome would be detrimental to commercial activity and contrary to the broader economic objectives that the IBC seeks to serve.

The Resolution Professional, representing the interests of the Corporate Debtor and its creditors collectively, presented counterarguments defending the NCLT’s order. The Resolution Professional maintained that Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC must be interpreted broadly to encompass all forms of security arrangements created by the Corporate Debtor. The purpose of the moratorium is to preserve the Corporate Debtor’s assets and prevent actions that could diminish the value available for distribution among creditors. While bank guarantees may not create a charge on specific assets of the Corporate Debtor, their invocation and subsequent encashment could have indirect effects on the Corporate Debtor’s financial position and the claims that the Corporate Debtor might have against third parties.

The Resolution Professional also argued that the exception under Section 14(3)(b) should be narrowly construed. According to this argument, the exception was intended to apply to personal guarantors and individual sureties who had voluntarily undertaken to secure the Corporate Debtor’s obligations using their personal assets. Extending this exception to bank guarantees, which are commercial instruments typically arranged by the Corporate Debtor itself as part of its financing arrangements, would unduly expand the exception beyond its intended scope.

Canara Bank, which had issued the bank guarantees and was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in the proceedings, adopted a neutral but illuminating stance. The bank’s primary interest was in clarifying its legal position and obligations. Through its counsel, Canara Bank argued that as the issuer of the guarantees, it stood in the position of a surety vis-à-vis the Corporate Debtor. The assets that would be used to honor the bank guarantees were Canara Bank’s own assets, not those of the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, the encashment of the bank guarantees would not directly impact the Corporate Debtor’s asset base available for resolution.

Canara Bank further elaborated that upon encashing the bank guarantees, the bank would acquire a right of reimbursement or subrogation against the Corporate Debtor. In other words, instead of NSIC having a direct claim against the Corporate Debtor, Canara Bank would step into NSIC’s shoes and acquire a claim against the Corporate Debtor for the amount paid under the guarantee. This substitution of creditors would not diminish the total claims against the Corporate Debtor; it would merely result in a change in the identity of the creditor holding those claims. From this perspective, the invocation of bank guarantees during CIRP does not prejudice the collective interests of creditors or undermine the objectives of the moratorium.

NCLAT’s Analysis and Judicial Reasoning

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, constituted by Mr. Justice Venugopal M. and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra, undertook a thorough examination of the legal issues presented before it. The tribunal’s analysis reflects a careful balancing of competing interests and a nuanced understanding of both insolvency law principles and commercial realities.

The NCLAT began its analysis by examining the nature and characteristics of bank guarantees in commercial practice. The tribunal acknowledged that bank guarantees are typically unconditional and irrevocable instruments that create independent obligations on the part of the issuing bank. When a bank issues a guarantee, it makes an autonomous commitment to pay the beneficiary upon the occurrence of specified conditions or the presentation of requisite documents. This commitment exists independently of the underlying transaction between the principal debtor and the beneficiary, and the bank’s obligation to honor the guarantee is not contingent upon the financial status or solvency of the principal debtor.

Drawing upon this understanding, the NCLAT observed that the assets used to satisfy a bank guarantee are the assets of the guarantor bank, not those of the corporate debtor. When Canara Bank honors a bank guarantee by making payment to NSIC, it utilizes its own funds to discharge this obligation. At the time of payment, no property or asset of the Corporate Debtor is directly affected or diminished. The Corporate Debtor’s asset base, which is the focus of the moratorium’s protective ambit, remains intact at the moment the bank guarantee is invoked and paid. [1]

The tribunal then turned its attention to the specific provisions of Section 14(3)(b) of the IBC, 2016. This subsection states that the moratorium provisions shall not apply to “a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor.” [2] The NCLAT analyzed the legislative history of this provision, noting that it was introduced through amendments to the IBC precisely to clarify that creditors could proceed against guarantors and sureties despite the moratorium imposed on the corporate debtor. The legislative intent behind this exception was to recognize that guarantors occupy a distinct legal position from the corporate debtor itself, and that enforcing guarantees does not interfere with the corporate debtor’s assets or the resolution process.

In applying Section 14(3)(b) to the facts of the case, the NCLAT concluded that Canara Bank, which had issued the bank guarantees, occupied the position of a surety within the meaning of this provision. The tribunal reasoned that a bank guarantee is fundamentally a contract of guarantee where the bank guarantees the performance of obligations by the corporate debtor. Therefore, the bank that issues the guarantee is a surety, and the exception carved out under Section 14(3)(b) applies to actions taken against such a surety.

The NCLAT further reasoned that the subsequent relationship between Canara Bank and the Corporate Debtor, which would arise after the bank honors the guarantee, does not alter the applicability of the exception. Once Canara Bank pays NSIC under the bank guarantee, the bank acquires a right of subrogation against the Corporate Debtor. This means that Canara Bank would step into NSIC’s shoes and become a creditor of the Corporate Debtor for the amount paid. The tribunal observed that this is merely a substitution of creditors – instead of NSIC being the creditor, Canara Bank becomes the creditor. The total quantum of claims against the Corporate Debtor remains unchanged, and therefore, the interests of other creditors and stakeholders in the insolvency proceedings are not prejudiced. [1]

Addressing the Resolution Professional’s concerns about the potential impact on the Corporate Debtor’s position, the NCLAT emphasized that the moratorium’s purpose is to prevent the dissipation or reduction of the Corporate Debtor’s assets during the resolution process. The tribunal found that the invocation of bank guarantees does not result in any immediate reduction of the Corporate Debtor’s assets. While the Corporate Debtor may eventually become liable to reimburse Canara Bank for amounts paid under the guarantee, this liability represents a claim that would need to be processed through the insolvency resolution framework. It does not constitute a direct appropriation or removal of the Corporate Debtor’s assets in a manner that would violate the moratorium.

The tribunal also considered the practical implications of its decision for the broader functioning of the insolvency resolution framework and commercial transactions in general. The NCLAT recognized that bank guarantees serve important functions in facilitating commercial activities by providing security and reducing risk for parties entering into transactions. If bank guarantees could not be invoked during insolvency proceedings, their utility would be significantly diminished, potentially affecting the willingness of parties to engage in commercial dealings with corporate entities. The tribunal’s decision thus reflects an attempt to preserve the efficacy of bank guarantees as commercial instruments while maintaining the essential protections that the moratorium is designed to provide.

The NCLAT’s reasoning also drew upon jurisprudential developments in related areas of insolvency law. The tribunal referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in State Bank of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Anr. [3], which dealt with the question of whether moratorium provisions apply to personal guarantors of corporate debtors. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not extend to personal guarantors, and creditors are free to proceed against guarantors despite the corporate debtor being subject to insolvency proceedings. The NCLAT found that the same principle should apply to bank guarantees, where the guarantor (the bank) is a separate entity whose assets are not protected by the moratorium imposed on the corporate debtor.

The Legal Distinction Between Performance Guarantees and Financial Guarantees

An important dimension of the bank guarantee jurisprudence that merits detailed examination is the distinction between performance guarantees and financial guarantees. This distinction, while not explicitly addressed in the National Small Industries Corporation case, has been the subject of considerable judicial attention in other cases and has implications for understanding the treatment of bank guarantees during insolvency proceedings.

Performance guarantees are bank guarantees issued to secure the performance of non-monetary obligations. For example, in construction contracts, a contractor might furnish a performance guarantee to assure the project owner that the construction work will be completed in accordance with the contract specifications. If the contractor fails to complete the work, the beneficiary can invoke the performance guarantee and receive payment from the bank, which can then be used to engage another contractor to complete the work. The key characteristic of a performance guarantee is that it secures the performance of contractual obligations rather than the repayment of a debt.

Financial guarantees, on the other hand, are issued to secure monetary obligations or the repayment of financial advances. In the National Small Industries Corporation case, the bank guarantees furnished by Canara Bank were financial guarantees, as they secured the repayment of financial assistance provided by NSIC to the Corporate Debtor for purchasing raw materials. The purpose of these guarantees was to ensure that if the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the amounts advanced by NSIC, Canara Bank would step in and make payment to NSIC.

Some commentators and legal practitioners have argued that the treatment of performance guarantees and financial guarantees should differ in the context of insolvency proceedings. The argument is that performance guarantees, which secure the completion of specific contractual obligations rather than financial debts, should be more readily enforceable during CIRP because their invocation does not directly relate to the recovery of debts. Financial guarantees, by contrast, are essentially debt security instruments, and their invocation is aimed at recovering money owed by the corporate debtor.

However, the weight of judicial opinion, as reflected in the NCLAT’s approach in the National Small Industries Corporation case and similar matters, has been to adopt a more uniform approach to bank guarantees regardless of whether they are characterized as performance guarantees or financial guarantees. The key factor in determining whether a bank guarantee can be invoked during moratorium is not the specific purpose for which the guarantee was issued, but rather the legal relationship between the parties and whether the assets being utilized to honor the guarantee belong to the corporate debtor or to a third-party surety.

Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions

The question of how to treat bank guarantees and similar security instruments during insolvency proceedings is not unique to India. Jurisdictions around the world have grappled with similar issues, and examining how other legal systems address these questions can provide valuable insights.

In the United Kingdom, where the insolvency framework has influenced many Commonwealth jurisdictions including India, the approach to guarantees during insolvency proceedings shares certain similarities with the Indian position. Under UK insolvency law, the moratorium imposed during administration (a process analogous to India’s CIRP) generally does not prevent creditors from proceeding against guarantors. The rationale is similar: guarantors have separate obligations and separate assets, and allowing creditors to enforce guarantees does not prejudice the insolvency estate of the primary debtor.

The United States bankruptcy system, governed primarily by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, also recognizes the separate nature of guarantors’ obligations. While the filing of a bankruptcy petition triggers an automatic stay that prevents most collection actions against the debtor, this stay does not extend to guarantors unless they too file for bankruptcy protection. Creditors remain free to pursue guarantors for the full amount of guaranteed obligations, although the guarantor may have subsequent claims against the bankruptcy estate for any amounts paid.

In the European Union, the approach to guarantees during insolvency varies somewhat among member states, as insolvency law has not been fully harmonized at the EU level. However, the general principle that guarantors maintain separate obligations that can be enforced notwithstanding the primary debtor’s insolvency is widely accepted. The EU Insolvency Regulation, which governs cross-border insolvency matters, recognizes the autonomy of guarantee arrangements and does not extend the effects of insolvency proceedings to guarantors automatically.

These comparative perspectives reinforce the soundness of the NCLAT’s approach in the National Small Industries Corporation case. By allowing the invocation of bank guarantees during CIRP, Indian insolvency law aligns itself with international best practices and maintains consistency with how guarantees are treated in other major jurisdictions. This alignment is important not only for ensuring doctrinal coherence but also for maintaining India’s attractiveness as a destination for international commercial activity.

Implications for Banking Practice and Commercial Transactions

The NCLAT’s decision in the National Small Industries Corporation case has significant practical implications for how banks, creditors, and corporate borrowers structure their commercial arrangements. The ruling provides clarity and certainty regarding the enforceability of bank guarantees during insolvency proceedings, which is essential for the continued vitality of these instruments in commercial practice.

For banks and financial institutions, the decision affirms that bank guarantees remain reliable security instruments even in scenarios where the principal debtor enters insolvency. This assurance is crucial for banks’ willingness to issue guarantees, which in turn facilitates a wide range of commercial transactions. Banks can issue guarantees with confidence that their obligations under these instruments will be honored and that they will be able to exercise their rights of subrogation against the principal debtor through the insolvency resolution framework.

From the perspective of creditors and beneficiaries of bank guarantees, the decision provides important protections. Creditors who have structured their transactions to include bank guarantees as security can be assured that these arrangements will be respected even if the corporate debtor faces financial distress. This encourages creditors to engage in commercial transactions with greater confidence and may facilitate access to credit for businesses.

For corporate debtors and their advisors, the decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the implications of furnishing bank guarantees as part of financing arrangements. While bank guarantees do not create immediate claims on the corporate debtor’s assets, their invocation during insolvency proceedings will result in additional claims against the insolvency estate. Companies should therefore be prudent in the extent to which they rely on bank guarantees and should maintain awareness of their contingent liabilities under guarantee arrangements.

Resolution professionals and insolvency practitioners must also adapt their practices in light of this jurisprudence. When assessing the financial position of a corporate debtor at the commencement of CIRP, resolution professionals should identify all outstanding bank guarantees and evaluate the likelihood of their invocation. While the invocation of bank guarantees does not violate the moratorium, it does affect the composition of claims against the corporate debtor, which in turn impacts the formulation of resolution plans and the distribution of value among creditors.

Conclusion

The NCLAT’s judgment in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. Sh. Prabhakar Kumar represents a landmark contribution to the evolving jurisprudence on the interplay between bank guarantees and corporate insolvency resolution in India. By carefully analyzing the nature of bank guarantees, the legislative intent behind moratorium provisions, and the specific exception carved out for sureties under Section 14(3)(b) of the IBC, the tribunal provided much-needed clarity on a contentious issue.

The decision affirms that bank guarantees issued by third-party financial institutions can be invoked and encashed during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process without violating the moratorium imposed under Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016. This conclusion rests on sound legal reasoning: the assets used to honor bank guarantees belong to the guarantor bank, not to the corporate debtor; the invocation of guarantees merely results in a substitution of creditors rather than a reduction in the corporate debtor’s assets; and Section 14(3)(b) explicitly excludes sureties in contracts of guarantee from the moratorium’s application.

The broader implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate parties to the case. By preserving the efficacy of bank guarantees as commercial instruments, the ruling supports the continued functioning of credit markets and commercial transactions. At the same time, by recognizing that the enforcement of guarantees does not prejudice the core objectives of the insolvency resolution framework, the decision maintains the delicate balance between creditor rights and debtor protection that is essential to the success of the IBC.

As India’s insolvency resolution regime continues to mature, decisions like the one in the National Small Industries Corporation case contribute to the development of a robust and nuanced body of law that addresses the complex realities of modern commercial practice. The clarification provided by this judgment will undoubtedly serve as a valuable precedent for future cases and will help foster greater certainty and predictability in the treatment of bank guarantees within the insolvency framework.

References

[1] IBCLaw.in. (2023). The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sh. Prabhakar Kumar. Available at: https://ibclaw.in/the-national-small-industries-corporation-ltd-vs-sh-prabhakar-kumar-liquidator-of-sh-ganesh-equipment-pvt-ltd-nclat-new-delhi/ 

[2] IBCLaw.in. Section 14 of IBC – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Moratorium. Available at: https://ibclaw.in/section-14-moratorium-chapter-ii-corporate-insolvency-resolution-processcirp-part-ii-insolvency-resolution-and-liquidation-for-corporate-persons-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-ibc-sec/ 

[3] Indian Kanoon. (2018). State Bank Of India vs V. Ramakrishnan. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163084985/ 

[4] LiveLaw. (2020). Financial Bank Guarantees And Moratorium Under IBC, 2016. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/columns/financial-bank-guarantees-and-moratorium-under-ibc2016-161494 

[5] Mondaq. (2020). IBC: Moratorium Vis-À-Vis Invocation Of Bank Guarantee. Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/india/insolvecybankruptcy/790884/ibc-moratorium-is-vis-invocation-of-bank-guarantee 

[6] Bar and Bench. (2023). NCLAT Fortnightly: Important orders on IBC. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/columns/nclat-fortnightly-important-orders-ibc-october-16-october-31-2023 

[7] The Legal School. Section 14 of IBC, 2016: Moratorium Meaning, Scope & Key Provisions. Available at: https://thelegalschool.in/blog/section-14-ibc 

[8] Rajput Jain & Associates. All about Moratorium U/s 14 of IBC, 2016 including judicial pronouncements. Available at: https://carajput.com/learn/all-about-moratorium-us-14-of-ibc-2016-including-judicial-pronouncements.html 

[9] Mondaq. (2018). Case Analysis To Clarify The Applicability Of Moratorium On Personal Guarantor Under Section 14 Of The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code. Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/india/insolvencybankruptcy/759870/case-analysis-to-clarify-the-applicability-of-moratorium-on-personal-guarantor-under-section-14-of-the-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code